In the case under consideration, the principal issue is the conflict of interests of the patient and the doctors. It is clear that they both should be adequately addressed, but the needs of James and his proper treatment are a priority. From this perspective, the sooner the participants in the process find a compromise, the better the outcome for James will be. Hence, the medical personnel should allow the boy’s parents to make decisions for him but only to the extent, which does not imply any further complications or harm. Nevertheless, as can be seen from the previous analysis, the situation was quite the opposite, and Mike’s preferences did not correspond to the needs of James.
The solution to the problem is in the timely interventions of doctors and nurses when they see that the current actions of the patient bring harm to the boy. Therefore, they should respect the parents’ autonomy but only until the circumstances become life-threatening for the latter. The rationale for this approach is provided by the researchers who claim that this type of conduct of the medical personnel is optimal (Nair, Savulescu, Everett, Tonkens, & Wilkinson, 2017). They emphasize the need to balance the interests in favor of James due to the increasing risks deriving from Mike’s irrational choices (Nair et al., 2017). In this way, it would be reasonable to overrule the requests of parents for James’ benefit.
The consideration of such important matters as sickness and health from the perspective of Christianity should be based on the ethics inherent in this religion. First, they are related to the teachings of human dignity, which are applicable to the case (Cuellar De la Cruz & Robinson, 2017). They indicate the central place of a sick person’s needs in the process of rendering medical services. Second, the principle of the common good should complement the presented above aspect by providing access to the necessary treatment for everyone (Cuellar De la Cruz & Robinson, 2017). Thus, every patient has a right to timely care in the required scope, as it follows from the fundamental provisions of Christianity.
The same rationale should be applied to the essential medical interventions as well as any other methods allowing to solve people’s problems. The human dignity presented by the Christian texts relates to the key idea of the role of a person in the world, which is the reflection of God (Cuellar De la Cruz & Robinson, 2017). Therefore, taking care of James with all available means, in this case, would be similar to doing God’s work. As for the common good as another critical factor, it also adds to the appropriateness of the physician’s actions. From this point of view, the provision of benefits to the Christian community is possible through the help for its members.
Considering everything mentioned above, Mike’s actions should correspond to the principles of human dignity and the common good as the vital components of his spiritual needs. In other words, as a Christian, he should allow the doctors to help his son since their intervention corresponds to the need to take care of God’s reflection, which is human. Moreover, this decision will indicate the good for all people belonging to the same religion. Since he initially refused from the use of dialysis and is uncertain about the kidney transplantation, his decisions can be considered as contradicting to his beliefs.
As for the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, they directly correlate with the necessity to deliver proper treatment to James. Their application to the case will mean that he trusts God and accepts the methods, which he provides. Hence, beneficence would be the rationality to accept the doctors’ advice from the perspective of God’s will, which controls everything. Nonmaleficence, in turn, would be in the fact that the kidney transplantation will not harm his son but, on the contrary, heal him and thereby increase his faith in God.
A spiritual needs assessment is a powerful tool allowing medical personnel to continue negotiations with such patients as Mike. They will be extremely helpful in the intention to demonstrate the connection between the doctors’ decisions with the principal provisions of his religion. This task will also contribute to the determination of spiritual distress in the patient and the scope of the assistance of medical personnel required for overcoming it (Timmins & Caldeira, 2017). In this way, the help that James receives from the physician will correspond to his parents’ religious views and resolve the conflict of interests of the participants in the matter.
Moreover, the assessment of the family’s spiritual needs would contribute to the organization of proper care with regard to their beliefs. This initiative will help the healthcare facility to satisfy them in the provision of support, which is envisaged in their religion. It is especially critical in the case if the doctors and nurses might fail to address such needs due to the lack of understanding of spirituality inherent in their patients (Timmins & Caldeira, 2017). Thus, this type of assessment will be extremely beneficial and allow not only to reveal the needs that should be addressed but also to find the right specialist to perform this task.
References
Cuellar De la Cruz, Y., & Robinson, S. (2017). Answering the call to accessible quality health care for all using a new model of local community not-for-profit charity clinics: A return to Christ-centered care of the past. The Linacre Quarterly, 84(1), 44–56.
Nair, T., Savulescu, J., Everett, J., Tonkens, R., & Wilkinson, D. (2017). Settling for second best: When should doctors agree to parental demands for suboptimal medical treatment? Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(12), 831–840.
Timmins, F., & Caldeira, S. (2017). Assessing the spiritual needs of patients. Nursing Standard, 31(29), 47–53.